Many civilian employees of Police Services may be regularly exposed to traumatic content, whether directly or indirectly, due to their occupations. However, they are excluded from coverage under the Presumptive Policy. If they sustain psychological injuries due to their workplace exposures, their claims will only be considered for entitlement under the WSIB’s Traumatic Mental Stress or Chronic Mental Stress policies. This is challenging because of the language in these policies and how it is practically applied.
For example, in the Chronic Mental Stress Policy, one must prove that they have experienced a substantial work-related stressor that is the predominant cause of their injury. So, in situations where one may have exposures in the workplace, but also experience stressors in their personal life, this can become tricky to establish.
In the Traumatic Mental Stress Policy, there is a clause indicating that the exposure to trauma must be first-hand. The list of qualifying traumatic events, although not an exhaustive list, contemplates first-hand exposures.
In this worker’s case, he was a records processing clerk who was diagnosed with PTSD due to his exposure to traumatic material in the workplace. It was his role to take calls from officers at the scene, in which the officer dictated information about the occurrence. The worker then created a summary or synopsis of the occurrence. The worker received and processed information for any type of incident or crime for which the police might be contacted. In the course of his work, the worker was repeatedly exposed to the details of traumatic and at times gruesome events. He was routinely exposed to matters involving violence and sexual violence.
The worker’s treating psychologist and psychiatrist stated that the effect was likely cumulative, but unequivocally confirmed that his PTSD was the direct result of his workplace exposures. Despite this, the WSIB had denied his claim because he didn’t experience the trauma “first hand”.
In allowing his appeal, the Panel ruled that the clause regarding “first hand” exposure must be read in light of the DSM diagnostic criteria. Therefore, the policy must be interpreted to include PTSD that is a result of any of the circumstances medically considered traumatic under the DSM-5 Part A criteria for PTSD, rather than taking the literal approach that the ARO had taken. They wrote:
We conclude that, for the purposes of compensation under section 13(4) and 13(4.1) of the WSIA and under the best interpretation of the Board’s TMS policy, as per the DSM criteria there can be circumstances in which a worker has not been exposed “first hand” to the traumatic event, nor by direct contact with the traumatized individuals, but in which the worker has nonetheless had sufficiently proximate and intense work-related exposure to details of traumatic events that those exposures cause work-related PTSD.
This is a particularly noteworthy decision. Noting that there are several civilian positions within police services that regularly expose workers to traumatic material, consideration should be given to whether or not the listed occupations under the presumptive policy should be expanded. In the interim, we can only hope that the WSIB adopts the approach taken by the WSIAT.
You read this worker’s full story here.